Headlines

Kirsten Powers

Republicans must treat women as equals

The media treated the “War on Women” as being primarily about reproductive issues, but not so the Obama campaign. Team Obama knew that the issue that women cared about the most was the economy, and reminded women constantly that the hostility the GOP shows toward the government could leave single women in a perilous situation. Republicans ridiculed “The Life of Julia,” but it was a brilliant campaign outreach tactic that showed how a Romney administration would affect women in a way that left nothing to the imagination.

Adding to the alienation of women voters this year were deeply troubling comments from GOP Senate candidates about rape, a tirade by Rush Limbaugh calling a woman a slut for testifying about the availability of birth control, and so on. …

A constant cry from the right is that Democrats “talk down” to women and appeal to their emotions, especially with unmarried women. Ironically, their claims of condescension are condescending themselves. The real reason that unmarried women prefer the Democratic Party over the Republican Party is because they don’t have a spouse to help carry the load, so the government becomes the only safety net they have, and they view it as a good in the world. They live with an economic vulnerability that most men and even many married women will never experience. If they lose their job, their children don’t eat—unless, of course, the government provides them with some help. They aren’t “moochers,” they aren’t “sluts” for having out-of-wedlock sex, and they aren’t dummies driven by emotion.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

The real reason that unmarried women prefer the Democratic Party over the Republican Party is because they don’t have a spouse to help carry the load, so the government becomes the only safety net they have, and they view it as a good in the world.

So the answer is to let them have what they want and see the results.

The war on women, like all the other “problems with X”, is fictional. It’s a Democratic campaign line meant to further exacerbate the “problem with X”. The Republican “problem with X” is that they don’t marshal vote based on race/gender identity. They can’t do that because the Democrats already do it.

To repeat the line as something to be assessed is a mark of stupidity. Unsurprisingly, Kristen Powers is first in line.

Give the people what they want. Oh, sorry, Boehner is already setting himself up to be Obama’s Gingrich by refusing to raise taxes. Idiot.

Translation: Republicans need to realize that, by and large, women are more dependent on government than men. This requires more Republicans giving women whatever concessions makes them feel comfortable. Then, most women will vote Democrat anyway, leaving the party more unprincipled than with additional women voters. But, it’s a good way for traditional Republican women voters to see their party turn its back on them just like for the rest of us.

Look at the Flukester. First, many women on campus don’t have the self respect or self worth to demand that men who want to party with them bring the party favors. Score one for men. Second, when a woman wants to party the man typically wants to ride bareback, regardless of all the various diseases going around. So, Sandra demands that government pay for the pill, and takes her chances with AIDS. Either way, the guy doesn’t have to pay for the pill. Or the abortion. Score another for men. Lastly, if the woman refuses to party without a condom then the guy will find a dozen more girls on and around campus who will – a practically inexhaustible well of floozies for the college-aged man – score another for him. All this in the name of Equality, where women can party as hard as men, and men can cheer them on.

That’s three points for men. Game, set, match. And yet, if government doesn’t spend money to keep this dystopia afloat, then it’s a War on Women. I’d rather remain the party steadfast against public funding for contraception, so that once women figure out the above (or simply grow out of it)and seek to free themselves of exploitation, they will find a party with a rock-steady platform, not one that bends in the political winds.

The government is forcing them to pay for the elderly. It would be better for the young to get the government out of healthcare and let them seek plans with cheaper premiums.

dedalus on November 9, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Young unmarried women don’t know anything about any of that. They’re even dumber economically than young unmarried men.

The fact is, my generation simply does not believe the GOP when they talk about liberal economics and the slide to socialism. It sounds like just another dubious talking point on the long list that both parties have. Those of us who are politically aware know what happened in the 1970s and those of us who are not starry eyed liberals know why it happened. But if you ask the average 30 year old and reminded him about gas shortages in the 1970s, he would guess that it had something to do with Iran, and if you asked about stagflation he might blame it on Nixon.

Remember, the Carter administration is what created the Reagan Democrats. That’s what has to happen to my generation, unfortunately. The best thing for the GOP is to hold fast on things that can’t be rolled back, but on things that can be changed (like tax rates), Obama needs to have his way.

(Of course, that’s the exact opposite of what Boehner is like to do. He’s already swearing blood oaths not to raise taxes on the rich, and caving to Obamacare.)

Hogwash. I am single, never married, and I didn’t need a man nor Uncle Sugar as a safety net. I had family to help out when I needed it when I was much younger, but for the past ten years, I’ve been the breadwinner for not only myself but my disabled sister, my retired mother and my school age nieces. I work two jobs and make it happen, and the last thing I need is government up in my business.

I pay about $1800/month for my PPO. A lot of it goes to stuff I don’t use, but the state mandates. I’m paying not only for my family but for coverage the government wants to socialize. If you want to get rid of all the mandates, it would save me money. However, it is the elderly milking the system not girls with contraceptives.

I assume you don’t recognize the irony of unleashing such a breathtakingly sexist bit of verbiage and then claiming that you value women.

urban elitist on November 9, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Except, of course, that the GOP does treat women as equals. We campaign to them on economic issues, assuming that they’re just people, people who care about their jobs and families. We don’t campaign to them as walking, talking uteri who only care about The Pill and abortion.

I pay about $1800/month for my PPO. A lot of it goes to stuff I don’t use, but the state mandates. I’m paying not only for my family but for coverage the government wants to socialize. If you want to get rid of all the mandates, it would save me money. However, it is the elderly milking the system not girls with contraceptives.